7 ms·
Given the sledgehammer test, at least from the side that thing will be very aggressive in a crash. As in, if it runs into you, or if you run into it you will be
by acidburnNSA 7y ago
Given the sledgehammer test, at least from the side that thing will be very aggressive in a crash. As in, if it runs into you, or if you run into it you will be more injured and/or dead. You generally want a little give on the road in both directions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility
Looks sweet though.
- ehnto 7y agoThat's a pretty common reason people cite for buying big SUVs. A belief that being the bigger car in an accident makes you safer.
- kijin 7y agoMore mass = less acceleration when the same force is applied, and acceleration is what really kills you. You can't argue with physics.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoThere's also strain in an inelastic collision. More strain = less acceleration = more living. Super rigid structure = less train = more acceleration = less living. No doubt the airbags and whatnot will make this very safe from the inside. I'm just worried about from the outside. But whatever. Not too worried. Plus, who knows, maybe they did design in strategic crumple zones. They never said they didn't. Just got me worried with the sledge.
- CamperBob2 7y agoAt least in principle, modern cars should be getting better at not running into things to begin with. The most survivable crash is one that didn't happen because HAL stepped in at the last minute to apply the brakes or stabilize the vehicle. Disagree? Why? Active crash-avoidance aids seem to be getting pretty impressive.
- tempestn 7y agoYep, if you're going to crash, better to be in as big a vehicle as possible. There is an argument to be made that smaller, more nimble, faster braking vehicles have a better chance of avoiding the crash in the first place, but the statistics do still show SUVs are safer overall, not just on a per-crash basis.
- kijin 7y agoUnfortunately, a vehicle can only be as nimble as its driver is. Most vehicles out there are driven by average, distracted, exhausted humans. About this time last year, I skidded and lost control of my car for a fraction of a second while changing lanes on a busy highway at 60mph. I'm alive and typing this not because I was nimble enough to recover from that situation, but because my car had electronic stability control -- a feature that is often not available in smaller models -- and a good set of winter tires.
- pi-rat 7y agoDon’t think I’ve driven a car without ESC, it’s been mandatory in new cars for almost a decade now.
- kijin 7y agoIt depends on the country. ESC became mandatory in most large markets since sometime between 2012 and 2014, but lots of cars are older than that. Unlike phones, automobiles can easily last 15 years or more if well cared for. Which is great in one respect but also a nightmare when it comes to safety and emissions.
- Someone 7y agoThat works until you encounter a concrete wall or solid telegraph pole. It also is unfair to those you share the road with to embark on an arms race “who can afford the heaviest car”, if only because pedestrians and cyclists will always lose that race.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoI think a perception of additional personal safety is definitely a reason people like SUVs. But you can be super safe while still helping protect your crash partners. You can often improve both your and your crash partner's safety with more crumple zones. I don't think the patrons of this thing are going to be thinking about this much.
- quotemstr 7y ago"crash partner"? That's a really weird and indirect term. If I'm in a collision with another driver, he's not my "partner".
- acidburnNSA 7y agoI'm not in the field; I just picked it up from the wikipedia page. They call it the "crash partner vehicle". Searching reveals that's what it's sometimes called in the vehicle safety industry.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoMaybe he should be. A lot of problems with driving come with people treating it as adversarial situation, instead of cooperative one.
- de_watcher 7y agoAdversary?
- profitnot 7y agoIt's more than a belief... the statistics bear it out. "The lowest 2015 death rate by vehicle type is for very large SUVs: 13 deaths per million registered vehicles. The highest is for mini cars: 64 deaths per million registered vehicles." https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-as-large-cars.html https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-...
- randomsearch 7y agoThat could just mean SUV drivers drive less, or a myriad of other things. PG posted on Twitter a while back a study that showed SUVs were _less_ safe (per mile driven? I think).
- read_if_gay_ 7y agoWould really have to be a myriad of other things if that’s supposed to explain a 5x difference without the obvious reason for it.
- randomsearch 7y agoWhat's the reason? That's it's bigger? But what if bigger cars crash more often? So yes, it does have to be thought about with clarity.
- IAmGraydon 7y agoThis is a very simple matter of physics. Do you know what typically kills in a car crash? Extreme G-forces generated by near instantaneous deceleration. Big, heavy things have to expend more energy to decelerate, so they tend to do so at a relatively slower rate. Small things can be stopped very quickly. Therefore, someone in a big, heavy SUV is going to have much higher chances of survival than someone in a Mini.
- JaRail 7y agoYou're completely ignoring higher center of gravity and rollovers.
- bluthru 7y agoI was going to make a comment about the hood not being soft enough for pedestrians hitting it, but maybe the computer would prevent such a collision.
- andbberger 7y agoThat is a poor, poor substitute for passive safety measures...
- CamperBob2 7y agoWhy? In principle, it should be possible to build a car that couldn't be used to mow down a pedestrian or cyclist if the driver tried.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoBroadly speaking, active safety systems in any industry are generally considered less reliable than passive ones due to things like software bugs, unforeseen circumstances, malicious tampering, power outages, etc.
- CamperBob2 7y agoBut hey, that's why we're both here, right, shooting the shit on a site called "Hacker News." Because we believe there are -- and will continue to be -- better ways to do things through the appropriate application of technology. Right? If your bio isn't a joke, you'd better darned well have that attitude. Otherwise I don't see how you'd get through a typical workday.
- george_morgan 7y agoPassive safety sounds like exactly the kind of thing you'd want to focus on when designing nuclear reactors.
- 7y ago